The most striking, and potentially significant, public rebellion against President Leonid Kuchma and his chosen successor in Nov. 21's contested election began silently.
On the morning of Nov. 25, Natalia Dimitruk, an interpreter for the deaf on the Ukraine's official state UT-1 television, disregarded the anchor's report on Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich's "victory" and, in her small inset on the screen, began to sign something else altogether.
"The results announced by the Central Electoral Commission are rigged," she said in the sign language used in the former Soviet states. "Do not believe them."
She went on to declare that Viktor Yushchenko, the opposition leader, was the country's new president. "I am very disappointed by the fact that I had to interpret lies," she went on. "I will not do it any more. I do not know if you will see me again."
Dimitruk's act of defiance -- which she described in an interview on Sunday as an agonized one -- became part of a growing revolt by a source of Kuchma's political power as important as any other: state television.
In Ukraine, as in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union, state ownership or control over the media, especially television, exerts immense control over political debate, shoring up public attitudes not only about the state, but also about the opposition. The state's manipulation of coverage was among the reasons that observers from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe called the Nov. 21 vote fundamentally unfair.
But in the tumultuous week since the runoff between Yanukovich and Yushchenko ended in accusations of fraud, Kuchma's control over television has showed signs of cracking, raising questions about whether his government can maintain public support behind Yanukovich's election.
More than 200 journalists at UT-1 went on strike Nov. 25 to demand the right to present an objective account of the extraordinary events that have unfolded since the vote, forcing the channel to broadcast a feed from another network before capitulating. Dimitruk walked out of the studio and joined them, protesting coverage that was skewed almost entirely on behalf of Yanukovich's campaign before and after the runoff election.
Journalists at One Plus One -- a private station, but one that hewed closely to Kuchma's point of view -- also rebelled. After its news editor resigned, the channel's director, Oleksandr Rodnyansky, appeared on the air and admitted that the station had been biased on Kuchma's behalf.
"We understand our responsibility for the biased news that the channel has so far been broadcasting under pressure and on orders from various political forces," he said, adding that the station would from that point on guarantee "full and impartial" coverage of the events roiling Ukraine.
Since then the two channels have begun to show what until last week seemed unthinkable: the enormous protests in Kiev that have paralyzed the capital, as well as Yushchenko himself. More important, the images reach across the country, including the east, where Yanukovich's support is strongest, in large part because his is the only view given significant time on state-owned or controlled networks. Channel 5, an independent channel that has become, in effect, the opposition's champion, does not broadcast in most of the east.
Oleksandr Savenko, president of UT-1, denied in an interview that the channel's coverage of the election had been biased. He said journalists had always been free to report on all aspects of Ukrainian politics, though he suggested that if they favored one candidate over the other, they should work elsewhere.
He said Yanukovich's overwhelming presence on the channel reflected the fact he was prime minister.
He disputed that the station's agreement to the journalists' demands after their strike amounted to a change in news policy.
"There is no such thing as honest news," he said.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath